CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. 533993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia (Garcia (dec'd), Miguel)

Claimant Francisca Garcia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision disallowing her claim for death benefits. Her spouse, Miguel Garcia, a World Trade Center volunteer, died in 2016 from conditions established in his prior workers' compensation claim. Garcia filed for death benefits in 2020, which the Board ruled untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. The Board also determined that Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A did not apply to a death benefits claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Article 8-A's exception to the two-year filing rule applied to the participant's disablement claim, not to a separate death benefits claim filed by a non-participant, thus the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28. A dissenting opinion argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 163, by mentioning "injury or death," indicated Article 8-A's applicability to death benefits, suggesting the matter be remitted to address causation and timely filing.

Death Benefits ClaimWorld Trade Center VolunteerWorkers' Compensation Law § 28TimelinessStatutory InterpretationArticle 8-ALatent ConditionsPosttraumatic Stress DisorderGastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseObstructive Sleep Apnea
References
12
Case No. CV-23-2137
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Charles Davenport

This case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the timely filing of a claim. Claimant Charles Davenport, who had prior workers' compensation claims, sustained a low back injury in February 2020 while shoveling snow for his employer, Oxford Central School District. A physician's assistant (PA) filed a medical report detailing the injury and attributing it to the snow shoveling incident, which was filed in connection with an earlier 2008 claim. The employer contested the claim, arguing it was untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28 due to the claimant's failure to file a C-3 form. The Board found that the PA's medical report constituted a timely filing, providing sufficient notice of a claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a C-3 form is not the sole means of timely filing and that other documents, such as medical reports, can satisfy the notice requirement if they convey an intent to claim compensation, a determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationTimely FilingMedical ReportPhysician's AssistantExacerbationSnow Shoveling InjuryLumbar Degenerative Disc DiseaseC-3 formNotice of ClaimSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rowe v. Oswego Hospital

A registered nurse sustained a lower back injury in December 1998 while lifting a patient and filed a workers' compensation claim in June 1999. The employer controverted the claim, citing lack of timely notice. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the claim due to non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 18, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found the employer was prejudiced by the delay. On appeal, the court rejected the claimant’s waiver argument, affirming the Board’s finding that the employer lacked timely notice and suffered prejudice, thereby upholding the denial of benefits.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ClaimNotice RequirementsEmployer PrejudiceBack InjuryRegistered NurseIncident ReportAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
3
Case No. 532851
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Maria Fierro-Switzer (William Switzer, Dec'd)

Claimant Maria Fierro-Switzer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed her claim for death benefits. Her deceased spouse, William Switzer, a retired New York City firefighter, volunteered at Ground Zero after the September 2001 terrorist attacks and later died from metastatic kidney cancer. Claimant alleged that his death was caused by toxic exposure during his volunteer work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding that Article 8-A of the Workers' Compensation Law, which covers volunteers in World Trade Center rescue efforts, requires the participant to file a WTC-12 registration form during their lifetime. As the decedent did not file this form, the claim under Article 8-A was denied. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that despite the independence of a death benefits claim from the decedent's potential compensation claim, there must be a legal basis for the claim and an entity upon which liability may be imposed. Since the decedent was a volunteer at the time of exposure, no claim could lie under Workers' Compensation Law § 16, which requires injuries to arise out of and in the course of employment. The decedent's sole potential avenue for recovery would have been under Article 8-A, which was precluded by the failure to file the required WTC-12 form during his lifetime.

World Trade Center9/11 AttacksGround ZeroVolunteer BenefitsDeath Benefits ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-AWTC-12 Registration FormToxic ExposureRenal Cell CarcinomaAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a discrimination claim. In 1986, the claimant sustained a shoulder injury and was placed on disability retirement in 1990 by the self-insured employer. In 2001, the claimant filed a discrimination claim, alleging retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the discrimination claim untimely, as it was filed almost 11 years after the alleged discriminatory practice in 1990, exceeding the two-year statutory period under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's argument that the two-year period should start from a later Board decision.

workers' compensationdiscrimination claimtimelinessstatute of limitationsretaliationdisability retirementAppellate DivisionBoard decisionNew York lawjudicial review
References
4
Case No. 534955
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Victor Martinez

Victor Martinez, a construction worker, was injured on November 11, 2020, when his right hand was caught between a cantilever pin and a concrete post. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, including injuries to his neck and back, in addition to his right upper extremity. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim only for injuries to his right forearm and wrist, disallowing the neck and back claims. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this determination, amending the claim to include the neck and back injuries. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed the Board's decision, arguing against the causal relationship of the neck and back injuries. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and deferring to the Board's assessment of medical witness credibility and its factual findings.

Construction InjuryWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausality DeterminationNeck and Back InjuriesSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion CredibilityAppellate ReviewWork AccidentBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedist Testimony
References
8
Case No. 533181
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Albert Olszewski

Claimant Albert Olszewski filed two workers' compensation claims in 2017 and 2018. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed both. Claimant filed a single application for review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied review of the 2017 claim because a separate copy of the application was not submitted for that claim, citing Subject No. 046-1106. The Board, however, reversed the WCLJ's decision on the 2018 claim. Claimant appealed the denial of review for the 2017 claim. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found that the Board abused its discretion by denying review based on a procedural requirement (separate forms for multiple claims) not explicitly stated in the form instructions or regulations, and where the referenced penalty in Subject No. 046-1106 involved cost assessment, not denial of review. The court modified the Board's decision, reversing the denial of review for the 2017 claim and remitting the matter to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionProcedural ErrorForm RB-89Multiple ClaimsSubject No. 046-1106Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aAbuse of DiscretionRemittal
References
5
Case No. 533203
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Meggan Cotterell

Claimant Meggan Cotterell, a resident assistant, was injured at work on September 13, 2015, sustaining lower back injuries. In 2018, it was determined she also suffered a causally-related right hip labral tear. The employer and carrier objected to amending her claim to include the hip injury, arguing it was untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. A WCLJ credited the testimony of claimant's treating orthopedist, Matthew Stein, who diagnosed the hip injury in June 2017, and amended the claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, also affirmed, finding that numerous medical reports filed within two years of the accident, establishing bilateral hip pain, were sufficient to provide the Board with facts from which a claim for compensation could be reasonably inferred, thus preventing the claim from being time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28.

Workers' CompensationHip InjuryLabral TearTimeliness of ClaimAmendment of ClaimStatute of LimitationsMedical EvidenceOrthopedist TestimonyCausal RelationshipPreexisting Condition
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 28,948 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational